PARVATI Vs. KHASIMSAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is a plaintiff s appeal. The appellant herein was the plaintiff in O.S.No.3/2012 then pending in the Court of learned Civil Judge, Yadgiri, (henceforth for brevity referred to as the trial Court for short). The present appellant as plaintiff has filed the said suit for the relief of specific performance of contract and injunction against the present respondents arraying them as defendants in the Court.

(2.) The summary of the case of the plaintiff in the trial Court was that defendant No.1 is the father of defendant Nos.2 and 3 and they constitute joint family. The defendants for their family and legal necessity agreed to sell the house property to the plaintiff for a sum of Rs.4,00,000/-. The plaintiff agreed to pay Rs.3,50,000/- to the defendants as part of sale consideration and remaining amount of Rs.50,000/- was agreed to be payable at the time of execution of the sale deed. It was agreed that the defendants should deliver the possession of the house property at the time of execution of sale deed. Accordingly, an agreement of sale was entered into between the parties on 04.01.2009. Part of the sale consideration as agreed which is a sum of Rs.3,50,000/- was also paid by the plaintiff to the defendants. Thereafter, the defendants did not issue any intimation to execute the sale deed in favour of the plaintiff by receiving remaining portion of the sale consideration. Despite sufficient demands made to them and also legal notice sent to them, the same could not yield any result which constrained the plaintiff to institute suit for specific performance of contract against them.

(3.) After service of summons, the defendants appeared through their counsel and written statement was filed from the defendants side wherein they have denied that any agreement of sale was entered into by them with the plaintiff agreeing to sell the suit schedule immovable property. They also denied receipt of alleged sum of Rs.3,50,000/- from the plaintiff and further denied that they had agreed to execute the sale deed after receiving a sum of Rs.50,000/-, on the other hand, contended that the plaintiff with an intention to grab money from the defendants has falsely created the alleged sale agreement. They further contended that the defendants are acquainted with the husband of the plaintiff and that for the family necessity, the defendants borrowed a sum of Rs.2,00,000/- from the said husband of the plaintiff under simple mortgage of agricultural land. The said transaction took place in June 2010 and the registered mortgage deed dated 10.06.2010 was also entered into between them. It was agreed that the said sum was to be repaid on or before 09.06.2012. With this, they have stated that the question of they agreeing to sell their house property and receiving any amount for part sale consideration from the plaintiff does not arise. They have further stated that they were always ready to redeem the mortgage by repaying borrowed amount. On the contrary, the plaintiff has created false agreement of sale with respect to their house property.